( 1. ) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 20-5-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 6385 of 2006.

( 2. ) THE facts which are essential to be stated are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), a Private Limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is a registered contractor under the Public Works Department (PWD ). A contract was awarded to him for the value of Rs. 5,78,54,000/ -. The appellant executed the work and during the construction work purchased minor mineral from local suppliers/traders from the open market. It completed the work in question, i. e. , upgradation and improvement of Khandwa-Deotali Road Km 1 to 55 within the time and submitted the bill as per measurement from time to time. When the question of payment arose, the respondent No. 2, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public works Department issued a letter dated 25-7-2005, Annexure P-5, requiring it to obtain Royalty Clearance Certificate from the Collector against the purchase of minor minerals like sand, murrum and metal which were used in the construction of road and on failure to obtain the certificate explain why the royalty amount should not be deducted from the deposit of 15% of performance security.

( 3. ) THE appellant submitted a reply on 29-7-2005 stating, inter alia, the demand of Royalty Clearance Certificate after two years of completion of work was wholly unreasonable and unjust and not legally warranted. There was a prayer to make the payment without insisting for such certificate. Despite the said explanation preferred, the amount was not paid. As the amount was not paid, the writ petition was filed on the ground that the amount could not be withheld in law.

( 4. ) A counter affidavit was filed contending that the amount due to the government from the contractor could be recovered as the arrears of land revenue. It was put forth that the appellant had used minerals such as metal, murrum and sand, for which he was paid as per rate quoted by him. At that juncture, there was no insistence for production of any Royalty Clearance certificate as the same was not required under the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thereafter, the matter was examined and it was found that the appellant had not deposited any amount of royalty on the mineral used by him. The Mining Officer by memo dated 24-7-2005 directed the respondents to recover a sum of Rs. 89. 23 lacs from the amount lying in deposit as security performance towards the amount of royalty payable by the appellant. On the basis of the aforesaid letter of the Mining Department, t11111111he Executive Engineer as per his letter dated 25-7-2005 directed the appellant to furnish documents/certificates regarding payment of royalty in respect of minerals used by him before the Collector (Mining) and to obtain Royalty Clearance Certificate from him. As the appellant did not furnish requisite documents/certificates before the collector (Mining) and took no steps to obtain clearance certificates from the authorities, the amount was withheld. It was pleaded that in the absence of adequate material to show that the appellant had purchased the mineral from third party, liability would rest on the appellant to pay royalty in regard to the mineral used by him. It was also put forth that the royalty is in the nature of a tax or duty on exploitation of mineral and as per Clause 7 of the general conditions of contract, the appellant is liable to pay taxes and other duties payable to the state Government and if any amount is due and is not paid, the same can be recovered from the appellant under Clause 7. 8 of the agreement. Rules 30 (14)and 30 (15) of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 were placed reliance and the circulars Annexure dated 27-8-1997 and 1-7-2004 were pressed into service.

( 5. ) THE learned Single Judge referred to Clause 7. 8, Clause 2 of the miscellaneous Conditions, Rules 30 (14) and 30 (15) of the 1996 Rules